Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Head Spinning after Reading Tal'Mahe'Ra Book, Please Help

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Bluecho View Post
    Because the books present interesting ideas to build a game around?

    Vampire: The Requiem did the whole "no set metaplot" thing. While I am loath to imply that Vampire: The Masquerade should just be like that game in every respect, Requiem and the rest of the NWoD seemed to be doing reasonably well for themselves. So someone must consider them of value.

    But back on topic, I tend to consider more options to be a good thing, in an RPG, all other things being equal. If a metaplot were exactly the same across all books, it would make them consistent, sure. But it would also mean that if a given player or storyteller doesn't like that metaplot for whatever reason - as happened during the Revised era (death of the Tremere Antitribu, the Avatar Storm, etc) - then that player is out of luck. The game line has nothing to offer them whatsoever.
    I think there lies the fundamental difference between the yes canon/no canon, or yes metaplot/no metaplot crowds. One wants a toolbox of choices to, as you said, "build a game around", while the other wants a consistent, continual, living setting. Yes if you don't like particular directions of the story and changes in WoD, or Forgotten realms, or Sahdowrun, it sucks. Still, that kind of consistency is what makes long-term plots possible, not to mention novels and it's great to build a big, detailed world, because those plots, writeups and just stuff could accumulate and build on each other.

    It boils down to: some people like a setting and want to play in it and read stuff about it, including stories outside the table (ie. novels, comics), while other people prefer bigger felxibility and making their own settings, to an extent.

    And that's bad.
    For that particular person, yes, sure, but it's good for a lot of other reasons nonetheless.

    Moreover, the World of Darkness books have long operated under a sort of "unreliable narrator" conceit anyway. Drama and debate springs up from the books are often subjective, even when seemingly written from omniscient narrators. We have no idea whether the "facts" presented in a given book are even true. Let alone that they need to be true for every player and storyteller. Is it, therefore, such a terrible bother that different books might present ideas that are contradictory? For all we know, there isn't any actual contradiction, just a difference in perspective and an absence of in-universe comparing of notes.
    To an extent, yes. These things aen't absolute and never were. As I said, the fall of Atlanta happened, canonically, but details have rom to viggle. WoD didn't say a lot of things as the ultimate truth and left a lot in the shadows. Almsot every rpg setting does that, to some extent, even FR. Still, there is a canon story and version of things, in a lot of cases.

    Two different books talk about two different kinds of Baali, both maintaining them to be the "one, true Baali". Then this book comes along and says "it's not a contradiction, because there were ALWAYS two kinds of Baali". Nor is Tal'Mahe'Ra: Guide to the True Black Hand necessarily true in that assessment. Maybe there IS only one kind - for example, mayhe the "Nergali" Baali are the only true ones, and they are playing an elaborate con on the Tal'Mahe'Ra with this erroneous "Molochim" business. Who knows? It's up the Storyteller which they think is the most compelling and/or interesting take.
    This particular thing about the Baali didn't bother me, to be honest, because they were left sufficiently in the shadows to have room for this.


    Now consider that the storytellers wouldn't even HAVE that kind of complex choice, or the mystery that could be mined in a game over which is "true", if we weren't presented with multiple different assertions. I don't see contradictions in books as somehow invalidating them all collectively. I see them as opportunities.
    About important things, you have to decide which version is "true" at the end, if you're planning to build future stories and books on it. That's what NWoD didn't do, almost all the books were standalone pieces and it didn't have a continual story. A lot of people preferred and prefer WoD exactly because of that (among other things).

    And yes, the 20ths were/are the most "NWoD-crowd-friendly" versions of the games and deliberatley so. But again, they were advertised as anniversary compilation editions, building upon 20 years of material.

    (Plus, I'm a comic book fan. If I was incapable of handling the "official canon" changing from one book to the next, I would have given up the hobby long ago. When a given property is handled by many different creative teams, each with their own philosophies, ideas, and hang-ups, a mutable canon just comes with the territory.)
    And I'd draw the attention to the fact that almost all the long-standing, market leading, most-known rpgs are ones with metaplot and canonical worldbuilding. D&D (mostly by Forgotten Realms), Shadowrun, Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu (this one is debatable), World of Darkness back then, 7th Sea, Pathfinder (this one is kinda halfway though), etc.





    If nothing worked, then let's think!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Kammerer View Post
      What kind of metric could you possibly be using to declare nWoD to be doing "reasonbly well"? nWoD literally killed the company that was making it. Second edition of Requiem, made by a different company, had four books in five years. Mage and Werewolf had one book each. nWoD is as dead as dead gets.
      Hard to say. I am not a CoD/nWoD fan, but my understanding is that the 2nd Ed versions mainly aimed at altering the base system rather than changing or updating the "setting". A big complaint against a lot of gaming companies, at least back in the day was about producing more setting books for new editions when very little actually changed, (money grabbing), which I believe OP was attempting to avoid. Especially as nWoD went off of the premise of the base rules in the Blue Book, and each line building off of it.

      I know WtF was an exception, as the line itself was somewhat unplayable as it was, and I also know that they kind of discovered zero metaplot just didn't work, but had sort of backed themselves into a corner by focusing on the fans that did not want setting continuity and/or metaplot in their setting design from the start.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Beckett View Post

        Hard to say. I am not a CoD/nWoD fan, but my understanding is that the 2nd Ed versions mainly aimed at altering the base system rather than changing or updating the "setting". A big complaint against a lot of gaming companies, at least back in the day was about producing more setting books for new editions when very little actually changed, (money grabbing), which I believe OP was attempting to avoid. Especially as nWoD went off of the premise of the base rules in the Blue Book, and each line building off of it.

        I know WtF was an exception, as the line itself was somewhat unplayable as it was, and I also know that they kind of discovered zero metaplot just didn't work, but had sort of backed themselves into a corner by focusing on the fans that did not want setting continuity and/or metaplot in their setting design from the start.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Kammerer View Post
          What kind of metric could you possibly be using to declare nWoD to be doing "reasonbly well"? nWoD literally killed the company that was making it. Second edition of Requiem, made by a different company, had four books in five years. Mage and Werewolf had one book each. nWoD is as dead as dead gets.
          To quote myself, just because I don't want to write all of this out again so soon:
          Originally posted by RichT View Post

          That might have been the appearance, but that's not how things went down as I recall. We start with sales declining in the latter days of the Revised Editions for WoD. Naturally, our first instinct is to start planning a new edition, essentially a fourth edition, but then a discussion starts with the point that we've been talking all this time about Gehenna coming and how long can we draw it out and still feel like we're creating cool stuff. Next, we say "But what comes after Gehenna?". Is it more of the same story but with resolved plot lines and fewer vampires? Something post-apocalyptic? Or a total reboot that keeps the cool aspects but cleans up a lot of the "dangly parts" from a decade-ish of world-building?

          The third option seemed to garner the most excitement from the creative teams, although none of these directions were anywhere near to being unanimously applauded. The intimidation factor of the "wall of green marble" driving away new customers was often cited as a reason to make more than a normal new edition's kind of changes. That wasn't just about the physical books, but was very much a metaphor for all of the various reasons we had been hearing for why it was hard to get into Revised. Along the way, it was decided to offer the storylines of this new WoD in novels and anthologies, and keep the game books free of the "meta plot" and so not have new events show up in them that affected the world and invalidated our previous books and players' games.

          The NWoD core and VtR first edition sold crazy big, as did the next couple of core books, but the supplements dropped back to the same level as the declining sales that had started the whole thing. Because of internal allocations of resources, the fiction books, which would have delivered the depth to the setting if we'd proceeded as planned, were dropped. So, we had no real way of getting those interesting storylines out there, and at this point it is hard to know if that would have helped anyway.

          Ultimately, nWoD did actually provide more time for us to keep trying to get sustainable sales again across the company, but the changing marketplace was more the factor we should have been dealing with at that time. Maybe, if we had gone for just a new edition again, we would have had the same or better sales than nWoD, but there were no indicators we had available that suggested that would be the case, and there's no way of knowing now.
          As for the current state of Vampire: The Requiem and Chronicles of Darkness, we are very happy with their sales and the community they've gathered. Looking at them and comparing their release schedule to X, Y, or Z, is not indicative of anything except that we have a different publication strategy now than we did years ago when White Wolf was churning out books.

          Again, you can feel how you do about nWoD, but going with that setting wasn't what set old White Wolf on a downward path, it just didn't stop the decline as we had wished at the time, and has little to do with the current audience and releases.

          Thanks!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by PMárk View Post


            In other words: Masquerade isn't Requiem. There is Canon material. However, TMR is a rather Requiem-esque book in that regard.
            Not really, I mean I can see now people call 5e Requiemesque as its much more down to earth push but TMR is full on crazy pants on your head level Masquerade. Its an over the top elder conspiracy with other supernaturals, wierd bloodlines that your high level Sabbat/cammies can fight to protect shit. Its the epic Level Monster Manual for v20.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by RichT View Post

              To quote myself, just because I don't want to write all of this out again so soon:


              As for the current state of Vampire: The Requiem and Chronicles of Darkness, we are very happy with their sales and the community they've gathered. Looking at them and comparing their release schedule to X, Y, or Z, is not indicative of anything except that we have a different publication strategy now than we did years ago when White Wolf was churning out books.

              Again, you can feel how you do about nWoD, but going with that setting wasn't what set old White Wolf on a downward path, it just didn't stop the decline as we had wished at the time, and has little to do with the current audience and releases.

              Thanks!
              Thank you, that was really interesting to read.

              From my perspective I Loved first edition, dropped pretty much all other gaming for VTM. Second edition was exciting and I kept up with all the books, power creep was really out of hand however and things were put in with little or no thought to balance I think. Revised seemed like an effort to undo that power creep but the meta plot was something I grew to hate. The stuff Revised put out just wasn't worth buying, very garish. Sabbat seemed like clown time that could never escape the notice of humans, I just found there antics so poorly thought out.

              I think Vampire would have done better if they had not added dozens of clans and blood lines and disciplines and instead put out interesting settings and adventures and good fiction around the original and much better thought out clans.

              I play with first edition only setting wise, but I am coming around to DAV20 rules wise more and more seeing how it cleaned up the Gangrel weakness for example.

              I hope you focus on cool settings to visit more than "hey check out this cool power we added" I see no reason to pick up a core rule book, metaplot or new clan/path source book but a nice city setting where you do the heavy lifting with maps, history, and kindred write ups would be something I'd like to see about adapting to the original game.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Lian View Post

                Not really, I mean I can see now people call 5e Requiemesque as its much more down to earth push but TMR is full on crazy pants on your head level Masquerade. Its an over the top elder conspiracy with other supernaturals, wierd bloodlines that your high level Sabbat/cammies can fight to protect shit. Its the epic Level Monster Manual for v20.
                You missed my point. I meant that TMR (and to some degree V20 and the other 20ths) was Requiem-esque in that regard, ie: that it offered multiple, even contradictory options as material. It's not Requiem-esque in style and setting, or even rules (as V5 seems to be in some parts), but in the approach to Canon and metaplot.


                If nothing worked, then let's think!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Figured I'd necro this thread, because I'm also having some head spinning from this book, though for a slightly different reason. The dissonance is coming from within the book, not because of trying to reconcile with other sources.

                  The Via Hyron's (Path of the Hive) #8 guideline is "Feeding on the children of Seth" (as in, that is a failure on the path), and in detail it says, "Reclaim Abel’s blood in vengeance from the builders, Caine’s children. Those living in harmony with Creation in the wild are not subject to retribution from the One Above."

                  According to the Abelene Heresy, vampires are the progeny of Abel, not Caine... so Caine's children are just other humans. How are you supposed to know who are Seth's and who are Caine's???




                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Formosus View Post
                    I like the TMR, but I don't like too much crossover between WoD supernaturals; if it happens I like it on an individual or small group level. A multi-supernatural sect (especially of the Big 3 Vampires, Werewolves, & Mages) is pretty much out of the question for my chronicles.
                    Can you give your reasons for why you don't like such crossovers, involving interactions between groups and factions of different supernatural persons to a significant and major extent ? I think that it is one of World's of Darkness strongest points, that such crossovers can be done, and that they provide many opportunities, are thought provoking, and highlight the characteristics and qualities of different type of supernatural persons in the World of Darkness.

                    In regard to crossovers done through introducing M:tA Mages to V:tM chronicles, I think that that this can definitely be done in a way that is both subtle and full of potential ; while at the same time keeping the focus on Vampires, the organizations of Vampires, and the matters and goals of Vampires. One of the principal reasons I think it is so is that, after all, Mages tend to first investigate and ask questions about situations and persons ; while at the same time - even if it is often subtle or hard to identify - giving clear and distinct indications of their involvement, and possibly of their intentions. Thus, Vampires can definitely interact with Mages ; and either cooperate or compete with them, or try to defeat them.
                    At the same time, Mages can provide complex situations, and as persons can be very interesting in both unusual and mundane ways - allowing Vampire characters to make choices and to define themselves through their reactions to Mages' involvement, and also through what they will think and feel about involvement of Mages, and the Mages as persons. These choices and opinions formed can matter in regard to issues, affairs, and goals not related at all to the Mages who were interacted with.
                    Last edited by Muad'Dib; 10-20-2018, 04:27 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      The TMR, as noted before in other threads, is not the best book in the WoD.

                      Was that polite enough?

                      To be blunt, it's like a game of madlibs played by people with MFAs in creative writing. Great content. Nearly non-existent editing. I use it as a hodge-podge buffet of ideas.

                      It contains bloodlines that are mentioned but never detailed or even explained (eg Drakaina), gross contradictions of lore (NO Setites ever! Ever! Except for the Tlacique, they can join, because... umm, because we said so, that's why.), and contradictions with other canon books (eg the City Gangrel were excluded and clan antitribu were included in Late Antiquity, except these lines didn't exist then).

                      For perspective, all the above contradictions are all from just one page in the book, page 49. This page, unfortunately, is fairly representative of the jumbled mess that is this book.

                      The whole book shows a stunning lack of internal narrative consistency, or even consistent tone, style, and mood. Yet, most individual sections read in isolation are crafted well-enough to seem like good writing. It's as if the publishers sent out a request for writers to create intensely personal and well-written first drafts on the TMR as a way to get some creative juices flowing. They received some good stuff, and published all of it with little regard for how it would work as a whole. Or, whether it needed a second draft.

                      It's like if you got the dvd releases of every Bond movie ever. Then you took all the cut scenes, bloopers, and video extras included in those dvds and tried to splice them into a coherent, entertaining new Bond film of its own. It would have all the requisite car chases, fight scenes, Bond girls, sassy back-and-forth with Moneypenny, and high tech gadgets from Q you need in a Bond film, without any pesky narrative lines or Aristotlean unities that have become trendy over the past 3000 years or so.

                      All the flash, none of the coherence.

                      That's V20 TMR.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Nosimplehiway View Post
                        The TMR, as noted before in other threads, is not the best book in the WoD.

                        Was that polite enough?

                        To be blunt, it's like a game of madlibs played by people with MFAs in creative writing. Great content. Nearly non-existent editing. I use it as a hodge-podge buffet of ideas.

                        It contains bloodlines that are mentioned but never detailed or even explained (eg Drakaina), gross contradictions of lore (NO Setites ever! Ever! Except for the Tlacique, they can join, because... umm, because we said so, that's why.), and contradictions with other canon books (eg the City Gangrel were excluded and clan antitribu were included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_antiquity"]Late Antiquity[/URL], except these lines didn't exist then).

                        For perspective, all the above contradictions are all from just one page in the book, page 49. This page, unfortunately, is fairly representative of the jumbled mess that is this book.

                        The whole book shows a stunning lack of internal narrative consistency, or even consistent tone, style, and mood. Yet, most individual sections read in isolation are crafted well-enough to seem like good writing. It's as if the publishers sent out a request for writers to create intensely personal and well-written first drafts on the TMR as a way to get some creative juices flowing. They received some good stuff, and published all of it with little regard for how it would work as a whole. Or, whether it needed a second draft.

                        It's like if you got the dvd releases of every Bond movie ever. Then you took all the cut scenes, bloopers, and video extras included in those dvds and tried to splice them into a coherent, entertaining new Bond film of its own. It would have all the requisite car chases, fight scenes, Bond girls, sassy back-and-forth with Moneypenny, and high tech gadgets from Q you need in a Bond film, without any pesky narrative lines or Aristotlean unities that have become trendy over the past 3000 years or so.

                        All the flash, none of the coherence.

                        That's V20 TMR.
                        Maybe, but it was great fun to write!


                        Matthew Dawkins
                        In-House Developer for Onyx Path Publishing


                        Website: http://www.matthewdawkins.com
                        Patreon: http://https://www.patreon.com/matthewdawkins

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          About the Baali.

                          Baali are divided by two philosophies and into four factions. The opposing philosophies are Infernalism and Demonology, the first is about serving infernal, or other outside, powers and giving yourself to their causes while the latter is about learning about infernal and other powers and enslaving them.

                          Of the Baali elders Nergal represents Infernalism in that he has given himself completely to a Child called Namtaru and seeks above all to awaken his master. Moloch represents the Demonologist side of things in his efforts to steal the Childrens powers while simultaneously keeping them asleep.

                          So that is the big divide.

                          Underneath it the Baali are divided further by their method and ultmate goals. The four factions are as follows:

                          The Destroyers
                          Arguably they are the largerst faction and one most riddled with infernal members. They also include most of the followers of Nergal. As their name implies they are mostly in this to destroy the world which is easiest to achieve by awakening/summoning their masters. They are also the faction with the most ”lost” members, Baali who know nothing of their pre-christian roots, of Nergal or Moloch or of Namtaru and thus tend to serve what ever infernal power they manage to atract.

                          The Celestials
                          This smaller faction seeks to steal the power of the sleeping Children, and to gather knowledge and power from other sources aswell, so that they could ascend to Godhood. They are strongly on the Demonology side of the divide as their ultimate goal conflicts heavily with any sort of slavery, for them that is.

                          The Mysteries
                          The smallest faction of the Baali the Mysteries are drive by the question of why? They seek the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything. They tend to be on the Demonology side of the divide as service to an outside force, let alone slavery, could divert them from their goal. Having a master would mean that there could be questions and answers that are forbidden and that does not go well with the goal of understanding it all. Naturally thought the Mysteries would be ready to crack open the world if they believe that to be 5e only way to get their answers.

                          The Swarm
                          The second largest faction. The Swarm seeks to spread Via Hyron and survive. In this way they seem like infernalist as they arguably serve the Swarm and seek to spread it’s influence but on the other hand the Swarm actively discourages it’s followers from Pacting to any entity as ultimately the Swarm is about unity and serving other masters would fracture that unity. So they are kinda in between the Demonologists and the Infernalists.

                          All of the above can be found in the Clanbook: Baali.

                          Other than the above Cynic01 from the previous page gives a good over view of the Baali and a good example of how to combine all information on them into somewhat cohesive whole.

                          In the end how it all adds up depends upon each individual ST and their vision so YMMV.

                          Comment


                          • #28

                            Originally posted by Cynic01 View Post
                            However just for some idea of perspective on how powerful Pillars get at Level 5 the mage can attempt to do things only replicable by Chimerstry 9 with 6+ successes such as simply make living beings vanish from existence, create living beings, attacking concepts, etc.
                            If one wants to talk about and to outline how capable and powerful M:tA Mages are, then I think that it is much more appropriate and better to mention and describe the Magick Effects from the 1-3 Sphere levels. The 4-5 Effects have greater difficulty and tend to be Vulgar ; thus a Level 5 Effect can have a base difficulty of 9 ; the difficulty can be lowered, or means to get additional successes can be used, but it is the same in regard to the lower levels Effects.
                            I also have it in my headcannon that Mages do require very specific and hard to achieve conditions to use those Level 5 Spells and Rotes that they are capable of.

                            Senses and divination Effects of Prime 1, Matter 1, Correspondence 1, and Life 1 give Mages capbilities to acquire information ; including practically instantly while visiting a place or meeting a person briefly. Knowledge of Correspondence 2 and 3 enables potent and flexible scrying. Prime 2 can be used to stabilize Magick Effects. Knowledge of Entropy 2-3 enables Mages to change and alter events to how they want them to be. Entropy 2-3 can be used to create confusion or a distraction ; or to convince persons in regard to a topic or a matter through setting up or altering an event or an occurrence. Matter 2 and 3 allow for transmutation of one substance to another.
                            Last edited by Muad'Dib; 10-21-2018, 04:07 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Muad'Dib View Post


                              If one wants to talk about and to outline how capable and powerful M:tA Mages are, then I think that it is much more appropriate and better to mention and describe the Magick Effects from the 1-3 Sphere levels. The 4-5 Effects have greater difficulty and tend to be Vulgar ; thus a Level 5 Effect can have a base difficulty of 9 ; the difficulty can be lowered, or means to get additional successes can be used, but it is the same in regard to the lower levels Effects.
                              I also have it in my headcannon that Mages do require very specific and hard to achieve conditions to use those Level 5 Spells and Rotes that they are capable of.

                              Senses and divination Effects of Prime 1, Matter 1, Correspondence 1, and Life 1 give Mages capbilities to acquire information ; including practically instantly while visiting a place or meeting a person briefly. Knowledge of Correspondence 2 and 3 enables potent and flexible scrying. Prime 2 can be used to stabilize Magick Effects. Knowledge of Entropy 2-3 enables Mages to change and alter events to how they want them to be. Entropy 2-3 can be used to create confusion or a distraction ; or to convince persons in regard to a topic or a matter through setting up or altering an event or an occurrence. Matter 2 and 3 allow for transmutation of one substance to another.
                              Problem is the Itarajana don't use the Spheres and Arete; they use the Foundation and Pillar system from Dark Ages Mage. The mechanics for the two are different enough to not be exactly comparable for a number of reasons
                              • Foundation vs Arete - This is the biggest difference, Foundation IS NOT Arete.
                                • Pillars are not limited by Foundation rating like Spheres are limited to Arete - A starting Itarajana can easily have a 5 in a Pillar [3 starting dots +6 Bonus (Freebies) points] while a starting Mage cannot have over 3 Arete at creation meaning they will be limited to Spheres of 3.
                                  • So because a starting Pillar Mage can have a Pillar at 5 with ease (and still have Bonus points left over for other traits), 5 has to be considered right out of the gate for power level.
                                • When casting you roll Foundation + Pillar and then split the successes between different categories for what and how long the effect functions. In Mage you only roll your Arete when casting. So the average Pillar Mage is going to have a higher die pool for their magic per roll (though they may require more successes for larger effects).
                                  • Both Pillar and Sphere Mages can use ritual magic for larger effects so that is essentially a null when comparing.
                              • Pillars vs Spheres - Pillars use keywords to describe the conceptual areas the power effects, and they are broader than Spheres because of it (though they may lack certain conceptual areas - the Itarajana are lacking the ability to reshape lifeless matter or divination powers). In 4 Pillars an Itarajana can do almost anything a Sphere mage requires 9 Spheres to accomplish.
                                • Low level Pillar vs Sphere - Even at its most basic level a Pillar is more powerful than a Sphere.
                                  • Naraka 1 - The sorcerer can sense infernal influence, malefic magic, and imminent destructive forces such as bombs and oncoming storms. He can bulwark his consciousness against possession and his body against the elements, though not open flame and the most extreme cold.
                                    • Sensing infernal influence would probably be Spirit 1, Malefic Magic would be Prime 1, and imminent destructive forces would be Forces 1 and Entropy 1. Then they can protect themselves against possession, which is at least Spirit 2 since the first level of a Sphere is sensory. They also can protect themselves from all but the most extreme of element issues which would be at least Forces 2.
                                    • So a Sphere Mage would need Arete 2 and 7 dots of Spheres to equate what an Itarajana can do with a single Pillar 1.
                                • That discrepancy only gets worse as you go up in power level.
                                  • Naraka 4 - An Itarajana can now convert any significant source of energy into intense fire and cold. He can command it to rain fire or ice spikes. He can bind a fiend to a place, force it to possess a particular person, or command it to do his bidding. He can inspire self-destructive behavior in others so that they act on their darkest impulses. His curses wither limbs and crops, and even kill with disease, inflicting aggravated damage. He can break nigh-unbreakable objects.
                                    • Converting energy would be Forces 3, raining fire or ice spikes probably the same. Binding a fiend to a place, forcing it to possess a particular person, and commanding it do his bidding is Spirit 4. Inspiring self-destructive behavior and acting on darker impulses is Mind 4. Cursing limbs and crops, killing with disease, and inflicting aggravated damage is Life 3. Breaking an unbreakable object is Matter 4 (since object is broader than element and would encompass affecting complex objects).
                                    • So a Sphere mage would need Arete 4 and 18 dots of Spheres to equate what an Itarajana can do with a single Pillar 4. Mind you that is out of reach of a starting Mage by a significant margin, but so far within the realm of possibility for a starting Pillar mage that if they spent all their points on Pillar dots they could have two Pillars at 4. Since the other Pillars are similarly broad it is conceivable that those two Pillars at 4 would require 36 dots of Spheres to replicate.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Cynic01 View Post
                                [*]So a Sphere mage would need Arete 4 and 18 dots of Spheres to equate what an Itarajana can do with a single Pillar 4. Mind you that is out of reach of a starting Mage by a significant margin, but so far within the realm of possibility for a starting Pillar mage that if they spent all their points on Pillar dots they could have two Pillars at 4. Since the other Pillars are similarly broad it is conceivable that those two Pillars at 4 would require 36 dots of Spheres to replicate.
                                BUT a mage with those dots in Spheres could do a lot more, and a broader range of things as well.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X